Very bad, but if you actually want to change this, the way to do it is to tell Trump that Rollins said he has a small penis. I'm not saying you personally should do this, but you are probably no more than 4 steps away from someone in the Tech Right who has Elon Musk's ear. New thinking for a new era. It won't last long, but make the most of it while it does.
I want to remind every body that the true interest of farmers in developed countries is to use welfare concerns to ask for protection against foreign competitors, and to capture more value added (electric utilities support climate action for that reason). Ultra efficient farming is ultra cheap meat, and a declining weight in GDP.
Agreed. But the sad truth is that the partisan split is at the bottom of all this. Undoubtedly, animal welfare groups have made gains with left-aligned politicians. But for that very reason, animal welfare is left coded, "soft", feminine, what have you. Leading to knee-jerk opposition on the right.
In the case of this person you mention, the complete lack of trust across partisan lines only serves to help lobbyists. Factory farm lobbies will have an easier time pitching GOP politicos; and any lies they tell (such as denying the truth about crates, or animal intelligence) will find friendly ears. OF COURSE the nice conservatives from Tyson Foods are telling the truth about these so-called "animal welfare" laws! Of course I will not take a meeting with PETA-are you kidding me?
I doubt this person is Mengele. Sadly I just think she has been credulous of her own side; antagonistic to outside Information; corrupt; and this mindset is multiplied across parties and issues.
Shorter version: if you want to fix red state obstruction on this, you have to start with comity between the parties. Right now you just won't get GOPers to believe anything on this issue, due to (waves hand at generations of liberal lies and propaganda)...
The purpose of the 'ghoul's actions is not cruelty, but to make meat cheaper. After life saving programs, there are many programs to assist quality of life. Eating meat is one such way in which we humans, meat eaters that we are, judge quality of life by. The unpopularity of the previous administration owed much to rising prices for food, including meat.
Factory farms are unseemly. But they provide cheap meat to millions. Millions who would be very angry if they could no longer afford meat because some college student rehashed old PETA talking points from 2005. The rhetoric to try and get people to care needs a lot of work.
The welfare gains of people from cheaper meat needs to be weighed against the pain inflicted on the animals.
I strongly suspect any such weighing would come out heavily in favor of better conditions for the animals, even if we weigh human welfare much more heavily than animal welfare.
But to refuse to do the weighing reveals a position of dogmatic extremism and prejudgment. This is not a way to convince doubters.
Yes, if the only alternatives to living on factory farmed pork were super expensive, there could be a discussion. Something for a philosophy seminar perhaps, but not a discussion in real life.
Very bad, but if you actually want to change this, the way to do it is to tell Trump that Rollins said he has a small penis. I'm not saying you personally should do this, but you are probably no more than 4 steps away from someone in the Tech Right who has Elon Musk's ear. New thinking for a new era. It won't last long, but make the most of it while it does.
She’s relying on the well-known “policy I don’t like” carve out from the 10th amendment.
The blasé attitude toward cruelty against sentient beings is difficult to comprehend.
I want to remind every body that the true interest of farmers in developed countries is to use welfare concerns to ask for protection against foreign competitors, and to capture more value added (electric utilities support climate action for that reason). Ultra efficient farming is ultra cheap meat, and a declining weight in GDP.
Fine by me--whatever gets the job done. Don't need everyone to be an angel here.
Agreed. But the sad truth is that the partisan split is at the bottom of all this. Undoubtedly, animal welfare groups have made gains with left-aligned politicians. But for that very reason, animal welfare is left coded, "soft", feminine, what have you. Leading to knee-jerk opposition on the right.
In the case of this person you mention, the complete lack of trust across partisan lines only serves to help lobbyists. Factory farm lobbies will have an easier time pitching GOP politicos; and any lies they tell (such as denying the truth about crates, or animal intelligence) will find friendly ears. OF COURSE the nice conservatives from Tyson Foods are telling the truth about these so-called "animal welfare" laws! Of course I will not take a meeting with PETA-are you kidding me?
I doubt this person is Mengele. Sadly I just think she has been credulous of her own side; antagonistic to outside Information; corrupt; and this mindset is multiplied across parties and issues.
Shorter version: if you want to fix red state obstruction on this, you have to start with comity between the parties. Right now you just won't get GOPers to believe anything on this issue, due to (waves hand at generations of liberal lies and propaganda)...
"There is a special place in hell for such people"
I hope it's a very confined place.
The empathy people are happy to wish eternal suffering on their opponents but shrimp and pigs must never suffer.
It was meant ironically.
The purpose of the 'ghoul's actions is not cruelty, but to make meat cheaper. After life saving programs, there are many programs to assist quality of life. Eating meat is one such way in which we humans, meat eaters that we are, judge quality of life by. The unpopularity of the previous administration owed much to rising prices for food, including meat.
Factory farms are unseemly. But they provide cheap meat to millions. Millions who would be very angry if they could no longer afford meat because some college student rehashed old PETA talking points from 2005. The rhetoric to try and get people to care needs a lot of work.
This is insightful and deserves amplification.
The welfare gains of people from cheaper meat needs to be weighed against the pain inflicted on the animals.
I strongly suspect any such weighing would come out heavily in favor of better conditions for the animals, even if we weigh human welfare much more heavily than animal welfare.
But to refuse to do the weighing reveals a position of dogmatic extremism and prejudgment. This is not a way to convince doubters.
Yes, if the only alternatives to living on factory farmed pork were super expensive, there could be a discussion. Something for a philosophy seminar perhaps, but not a discussion in real life.
"There is a special place in hell for such people"
I wonder, is this a rhetorical flourish, or do you actually believe in hell? I seem to recall you espousing universalism in the past.
Rhetorical flourish
Is it Rollins who wants to do this, or does Rollins simply want to allow other people to do this?
I think there's a difference.
> That kind of evil mistreatment of animals is going to be inflicted on hundreds of millions of pigs if Rollins.
Think you missed a phrase here. Is confirmed, maybe?